[c-nsp] 2811 router doesn't recognize T-1 WICs?
John Neiberger
John.Neiberger at efirstbank.com
Wed Jan 26 10:54:02 EST 2005
I will never buy another used WIC-1DSU-T1. There are too many
counterfeits out there and it's hard to tell the difference. I bought
several over the past few months and half of them have had problems. I'm
tired of hassling with them, but it sounds like I might be in for more
potential hassle if I go with the new WIC V2s.
John
--
>>> Dave Temkin <dave at ordinaryworld.com> 1/26/05 8:46:29 AM >>>
FWIW, I've had nothing but great success with the 2811's/2821's (and
3845's) thus far. I've got a couple of the WIC-1DSU's, but mostly
have
VWIC-2MFT-T1's and they work flawlessly thus far. I have about 20 T1's
in
production using them.
They can be had on eBay for $170, so you might want to consider to
swapping to those instead of switching platforms. Seems like the
-V2's
have more production problems than they're worth because they're new.
Only complaint I have thus far on the 28xx is that when you do a write
mem
it can cause ISIS adjacencies to flap if the hello-interval is set to
minimal. Still need to get a ddts opened on that.
-Dave
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, John Neiberger wrote:
> Dave,
>
> That's a great idea. If you ask them to make it viewable then I'll
be
> able to track the progress of these bugs. I'd like to use the 2811s
and
> those WICs but now I'm wondering if I should cancel my order and
stick
> with a 2620XM instead. Does anyone know if the V2 WICs are
experiencing
> problems when used in the 2600XM series or does this just happen in
the
> 2800 series routers?
>
> Thanks,
> John
> --
>
> >>> Rodney Dunn <rodunn at cisco.com> 1/26/05 8:25:22 AM >>>
> For the record.
>
> If you have a case open and the bug is not
> viewable on CCO then ask the TAC engineer
> to make it viewable.
>
> There are usually only two reasons a bug
> is not viewable on CCO.
>
> a) PSIRT
> b) It was found internally in testing and was thought
> to only exist in images that were never released to customers.
> If it's determined it was in an image released to a customer
> the correct procedure is to modify that bug so it is visible
> on CCO with the correct enclosures (ie: Release-note).
>
> ...or there is a 3rd reason and someone just messed up.
>
> Bottom line, if you encounter a bug not viewable on
> CCO that you are hitting ask them to make it viewable.
>
> Rodney
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:14:48AM -0600, MADMAN wrote:
> >
> >
> > Concerning the WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 we have been ecperiencing many
> problems
> > and have a TAC case opened. So far we have identifed twi issues
that
>
> > Cisco has bugs id's assigned to.
> >
> > - WIC runs for 2 hours, 17 minutes then goes down
> > - High number of T1 errors seen with V2 card, no errors seen on
same
>
> > line with V1 card
> >
> > These are Cisco internal bugs so I can't provide a bug ID.
Though
>
> > these specific cases may not reflect your experiences me thinks
the
> V2
> > has multiple issues.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> >
> > > Open a case with the Cisco TAC. Since your 2811 is probably
pretty
> new,
> > > you shouldn't even need a service contract (yet). They'll send
you
> replacement
> > > WICs and test to figure out why your current ones failed.
> > >
> > > So far, with the new 2811s, I have seen an instance where one
> customer bought
> > > a mix of six 2811 and 2821 routers, and six WIC-1DSU-T1-V2s,
only
> to find
> > > that three out of the six V2 WICs DID NOT WORK. The broken
three
> ONLY worked
> > > in slot 0, and often times the T1s did not work properly even in
> that instance
> > > (it would go down and a reload was the only way to bring it back
> up).
> > >
> > > The good three WICs worked fine, in any slot. The kicker is
that
> the six
> > > WICs had _SEQUENTIAL_ serial numbers, so for half of them to be
> "bad" in the
> > > 2811s was definitely not expected. They seemed to work fine in
> 3600 and
> > > other older routers.
> > >
> > > Same customer, same routers, they also had a problem with a 2811
> that
> > > is even more worrisome. One 2811, on a particular T1, would not
> stay
> > > up, "Line protocol is down", unless you set hdlc keepalive to 13
or
> something
> > > else odd. Plug in a 2500 with external CSU or 2600 with a WIC
and
> the T1
> > > works just fine with completely default settings. Ironically,
> other
> > > 2811s work fine at this location with default settings. All
2811s
> had
> > > the same IOS images (not that there is much choice for these new
> boxes)
> > >
> > > Yep, there are strange issues with these new boxes. Given
Cisco's
> marketing
> > > push, I would imagine most early adopters are using them
primarily
> in
> > > voice applications and not data T1s. Perhaps they were better
> debugged there.
> > >
> > > All I have left is to say "Way to go Cisco!!" for the broken T1
> technology -
> > > I know it's highly complicated, delicate, top precision work,
and
> that the
> > > utmost time and care goes into testing such obvious
> configurations...err..uhh..
> > > wait a minute, what was I saying ???
> > >
> > > Jay Hennigan [jay at west.net] wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hello fellow Cisco-NSP folk.
> > >>
> > >>I have a brand new 2811 router which according to the Cisco DPRG
> > >>configurator is supposed to take the WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 modular WICs
> > >>as opposed to the non-V2 type.
> > >>
> > >>So we paid the higher price for brand-spanking-new V2 modules,
and
> they
> > >>don't show up. "sho diag" gives:
> > >>
> > >> WIC Slot 0:
> > >> Unknown WAN daughter card
> > >> WIC module not supported/disabled in this slot
> > >> Hardware revision 64.0 Board revision >1
> > >> Serial number 1379991808 Part number
> 800-7441222-79
> > >> Test history 0x43 RMA number 48-55-51
> > >> Connector type PCI
> > >> EEPROM format version 1
> > >> EEPROM contents (hex):
> > >> 0x20: 01 80 40 00 52 41 01 00 C1 8B 46 4F 43 30 37 33
> > >> 0x30: 31 31 41 36 4A 82 49 20 9A 03 42 41 30 03 00 81
> > >>
> > >>Tried two different WICs in all slots with similar results.
> > >>
> > >>Is there some magic needed to get these recognized or do I have
a
> hardware
> > >>issue? The box is running IP-Base 12.3(11)T2, same results with
> 12.3(8)T.
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay at west.net
> > >>WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
WB6RDV
> > >>NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > >>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > >>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > David Madland
> > CCIE# 2016
> > Sr. Network Engineer
> > Qwest Communications
> > 612-664-3367
> >
> > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list